Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
119 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
56 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

An evaluation of LLMs for generating movie reviews: GPT-4o, Gemini-2.0 and DeepSeek-V3 (2506.00312v1)

Published 30 May 2025 in cs.CL and cs.AI

Abstract: LLMs have been prominent in various tasks, including text generation and summarisation. The applicability of LLMs to the generation of product reviews is gaining momentum, paving the way for the generation of movie reviews. In this study, we propose a framework that generates movie reviews using three LLMs (GPT-4o, DeepSeek-V3, and Gemini-2.0), and evaluate their performance by comparing the generated outputs with IMDb user reviews. We use movie subtitles and screenplays as input to the LLMs and investigate how they affect the quality of reviews generated. We review the LLM-based movie reviews in terms of vocabulary, sentiment polarity, similarity, and thematic consistency in comparison to IMDB user reviews. The results demonstrate that LLMs are capable of generating syntactically fluent and structurally complete movie reviews. Nevertheless, there is still a noticeable gap in emotional richness and stylistic coherence between LLM-generated and IMDb reviews, suggesting that further refinement is needed to improve the overall quality of movie review generation. We provided a survey-based analysis where participants were told to distinguish between LLM and IMDb user reviews. The results show that LLM-generated reviews are difficult to distinguish from IMDB user reviews. We found that DeepSeek-V3 produced the most balanced reviews, closely matching IMDb reviews. GPT-4o overemphasised positive emotions, while Gemini-2.0 captured negative emotions better but showed excessive emotional intensity.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (6)
  1. Brendan Sands (1 paper)
  2. Yining Wang (91 papers)
  3. Chenhao Xu (14 papers)
  4. Yuxuan Zhou (79 papers)
  5. Lai Wei (68 papers)
  6. Rohitash Chandra (64 papers)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

HackerNews